Friday, April 13, 2007

The Bombing of Iraq's ParliamentToday's suicide attack on Iraq's parliament, apparently carried out by al Qaeda, killed at least eight people and achieved the terrorists' propaganda objective. The BBC reports here. Al Qaeda no doubt knows that the patience of most Americans has just about run out, so it has every incentive to carry out symbolic attacks like today's. It worked; Secretary of State Rice had to deny that the attack shows that the "surge" is failing, and many other news outlets will no doubt echo the BBC's statement that "[t]he two attacks [a bridge was also bombed today] are major blows to the much-trumpeted Baghdad security surge now in its third month...."Coincidentally, an Arab television network was filming an interview with a member of parliament at the moment the bomb went off. This striking footage was the result:

(there is a video linked on powerline site)

I agree with Pajamasmedia who had someone onsite (with interesting observations) it had to be someone on the inside that helped make this happen.

What about this:

Al-Sadr has been rattling his sabres lately, has several connections in parliament (I believe he has a couple of members from his faction in parliament).

It would make sense, as he also has made other demonstrations of force with thousands of marchers.

Al-Sadr could also be doing Iran's bidding, which is even more interesting.

Of course everything is speculation, but one can connect the potential players here.

Al-Queda (which claimed responsibility) has it's hands full with just staying alive these days.

And Al-Sadr has been flexing his political muscle.

As far as Iran - remember Clausewitz: military action is just another political tool to get what you want.

Clausewitz lived in 1700's within a classical Europe filled with many wars and political intrigue.But his sharp mind put into focus many principles of war. As SunTzu did for the Chinese warlords.

There are some interesting quotes attributed to Pelosi by the way of her not refuting the statements:

Pelosi said that throughout the congressional delegation's recent Middle East trip, "every place we went we had a constant message: the safety and security of Israel, fighting terrorism.''"There was, of course, a shadow over all of it, Iran: Iran's support of terrorist groups is something that must be stopped,'' she said. "Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon is something that must not happen and we must stop them with the strongest of diplomatic measures.''Lantos noted that "with the speaker's support,'' he has co-sponsored legislation in the House that calls for making available to all countries -- including Iran -- nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under international oversight by establishing a "nuclear fuel bank.""So if the Iranian president says that he is developing (nuclear material) for peaceful purposes, we are assisting him in that process,'' said Lantos, who anticipated the legislation could pass as early as May.

-----------------------------

Interesting to note that Tom Lantos is more than willing to give nuclear fuel to Iran, a country which has theocratic oligarchical regime.

The current President of Iran has made many statements about the destruction of Israel and to other US interests.

The interesting irony is that Pelosi and other democrats which are against blind belief in theocratic edicts by the religous right, are more than willing to put their faith behind a theocratic Muslim country with a bent on producing nuclear weapons.

Iran states every week or two that they are producing nuclear weapons, and every other week what they will do with them.

So back to my original question is Pelosi the 21st century Chamberlain?

Only time will tell of course.

And if a bomb gets developed and dropped somewhere we can point to this time in history and state that the US was not willing to make a corrective measure even when our soldiers are being attacked within Iraq by Iranian weapons and actual skirmishes with their army or paramilitary units.